Globaliser

Given what happened on AF447, I can see why this might concern some people!

Can I ask a couple of related questions? I have been told that the thinking at BA is that honed proficiency in manual flying is not as high up the list as teaching crew to think widely and holistically enough to be able to deal with the unexpected when it arises so that crew don't get either paralysed by surprise or panicked into hastily taking inappropriate action.

Is that a fair summary of BA philosophy? And how does BA train you into that mindset?

For context, the question I asked was whether BA might think of mandating practice in hand flying for everyone, not necessarily in the operational fleet but perhaps by encouraging or even sponsoring light aircraft flying whilst off duty. And (before someone jumps on what's above) the answer did not downplay in any way the importance of proficiency in manual flying - it was a question of relative priorities.

John Kline

One also for pilots and trigonometry lovers....
If a plane is travelling at its cruising altitude and its a clear day- no cloud cover. What is the radius of land that the plane would be visible? For example could it be visible from the ground in both London and Birmingham at the same time?
I'm intrigued to know everytime I look up at contrails in a clear blue sky.

Waterhorse

There is a formula for working it out, it equates to the square root of 2 x your height in feet. The answer is in miles. This is line of sight to the horizon so double it for horizon to horizon i.e. you will be at the centre of a circle with the distance you just worked out being the radius to the horizon.

This is theoretical and takes no account of haze or pollution or poor eyesight!

simonrp84

Should be easily possible, yes. From 9km altitude (around 30,000ft) you can see about 340km in each direction.

Sigwx

I have to say I agree with the CX pilots when cadets are concerned. Those joining from other commercial airlines flying smaller types have been able to gain experience in handling proficiency. Should this bag not be utilised on the line for a year, it will not be the end of the world as they will still be able to brush off the dust when they upgrade. The cadets don't have the handling experience to fall back on. I am not entirely sure but I understand CX puts its second officers in for a manual handling sim once every so often to remain proficient. i would imagine the FOs have fairly stringent limitations on conditions they are authorised to land in once upgraded until a certain 'mile stone' of experience is reached but as I say I am not sure.

You are both correct and incorrect in your assumption. The myth that BA does not approve of manual flying has been busted again at a recent company safety symposium. Yes the use of automatics is recommended but not mandated apart from clear cut regulatory requirements (RVSM, Autoland etc) and common sense (very busy airspace, feeling tired as a crew). At all other times we are free to brief what we are going to do and bottom lines and an escape plan to re build automatics to help if for any reason things don't go according to plan, keep it safe first then work out why it went wrong later on. In every three year sim training cycle we will be exposed to a detail that focuses on manual flying and we actually fly at least one 'raw data' manually flown approach per year in the sim to retain our licence. Many pilots also have a practice on line (which is great to see) and we also have the facility for 'sim practice' whereby we can book a sim slot that is empty with a sim operator who will set up the machine for our intended purpose, whether that be practicing raw data ILS approaches, circling to land or what have you. In terms of outside interests, many pilots act as instructors for air cadets in their spare time taking cadets gliding or in Grob Tutor single engine Pistons aircraft. We have aerobatic pilots in our midst one of which is rather well known. So some pilots do indeed have outside flying interests which are acceptable to the company and all add to the 'experience bucket' to fall back on when the proverbial fits the fan.

You are correct about the 'mindset' to combat the startle factor. We are trained in non-normal management in a variety of ways but we fall back to a framework that encompasses managing the problem whilst 'keeping it safe' and benefit risk analysis to come to the best fit solution for the day. Some 'events' naturally allow plenty of time to think, seek advice and options and make a decision. Others do not. E,g. One engine shut down over the east coast of the USA on a 747. Do we divert or can we utilise the 3 engine continuation policy given the circumstances presented to us VS getting airborn with the aircraft cabin and flight deck rapidly filling with smoke and an engine fire switch suddenly illumiates with all the bells and whistles.
One is of no immediate panic but still carries a risk of loss of controlled flight if not handled correctly until it is 'made safe', there after plenty of decision time is afforded. The latter is almost self explanatory to pilots in terms of time available and what option you will exercise should you even be lucky enough too be in a position to exercise a choice.

I hope that sort of answers the question?

EDIflyer

I do love this thread - really interesting discussion & info, esp this most recent one. Thanks again to all the BA staff & other experts that come on here to answer questions! (and to fellow pax for asking them!) ^

Globaliser

Thanks, Sigwx! Yes, it does - and it's very comforting to read that level of detail.

Royalscot

Noted the following on The BA Source

"British Airways Boeing 787-8 G-ZBJH positioned Cardiff-Wales – London Heathrow as BA9176 this morning following its hangar trials yesterday."

My question is what would hangar trials consist of?

timbo_baggins

Systems, comms, does the espresso machine work?

(According to flightradar, currently en-route to AUS.)

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ba191/

Royalscot

Thank you Timbo

SpurMan

Aircraft rostering question:

Got a flight to PHL next month, and it's on a 772, but one of the 12F birds, which seems odd, as normally these are 14F birds. Not complaining, less in F means more service per head, but it just intrigues me as to why one or two flights are done with one type as opposed to the 'usual' type, late aircraft substitutions notwithstanding. All the other flights around the date are normal 14F birds, so why would one day differ over any other, and how does BA decide what goes where & when?.

BingBongBoy

Our heavy maintenance facility at CWL has not done a heavy check on a 787 yet as they have not been due. It has been preparing, tooling and building for the first frame to have its first heavy check. So, the aircraft went down there to ensure that the jigs, platforms, tooling and access and the likes are all in place and working properly before the actual date.

BingBongBoy

Do note, the 787-8 does not have an Espresso machine�

As post above, this is test for heavy maintenance tooling/access/jigs before the first heavy check operation is due on the new frame type.

John Kline

Aircraft roster query.
Due to fly to YYZ this Sat. Have noticed the usual 787 hasn't been used since approx 20/9 - apart from one day.replaced by B777.
Is this due to a tech issue grounding all of the 787 fleet?
Any idea when normal service resumes?
Cheers.

Globaliser

One route doesn't have its usual 787, and you think this is indicative of a fleet-wide grounding? Does it help to have a look at what the fleet has actually been doing over the last 10 days? Does it look like they've all been grounded?

http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbja.htm
http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbjb.htm
http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbjc.htm
http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbjd.htm
http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbje.htm
http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbjf.htm
http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbjg.htm
http://ftdashboard.net/regno/gzbjh.htm